In a September 12 (2006)
lecture to academicians at the Regensburg University in Germany,
Pope Benedict made reference to a 14th Byzantine emperor’s
comment which suggests Islam is a religion of violence. This
reference by the Pope caused angry uproar, demonstrations, and
waves of condemnations and violence in the Muslim world. A few
Christians in Iraq and a Nun in Somalia were killed by Islamist
fanatics; Churches were vandalized and set on fire in Palestine
and the Pope was threatened with death. In the backdrop of this
controversy, thirty‑eight greatest Islamic experts and grand
Muftis from all across the world, which even included Professors
from University of Cambridge (UK) and George Washington University
(USA), wrote an Open Letter
to the Pope on October 12, 2006. This letter was meant mainly to
point out errors and misconception contained in the Pope’s
September 12 Lecture in Germany:

“we must
point out some errors in the way you mentioned Islam as a
counterpoint to the proper use of reason, as well as some mistakes
in the assertions you put forward in support of your argument.”,
wrote the scholars.

This article will analyze in detail the salient points
contained in this letter, which I found are filled with lies,
deceptions and idiocy from the beginning to the end.

There is no compulsion in Religion

The first key point the scholars address is the Pope’s
misconception and erroneous idea about the Koranic verse “There
is no compulsion in Religion” [Q 2:256]. They wrote:

You mention
that "according to the experts" the verse which begins, ‘There
is no compulsion in religion’ (al-Baqarah 2:256) is from the
early period when the Prophet "was still powerless and under
threat," but this is incorrect. In fact this verse is acknowledged
to belong to the period of Quranic revelation corresponding to the
political and military ascendance of the young Muslim community.
‘There is no compulsion in religion’ was not a command to
Muslims to remain steadfast in the face of the desire of their
oppressors to force them to renounce
their faith, but was a reminder to Muslims themselves, once they
had attained power, that they could not force another's heart to
believe. There is no compulsion in religion addresses those in a
position of strength, not weakness. The earliest commentaries on
the Qur'an (such as that of Al-Tabari) make it clear that some
Muslims of Medina wanted to force their children to convert from
Judaism or Christianity to Islam, and this verse was precisely an
answer to them not to try to force their children to convert to
Islam.

The scholars assert that this verse was revealed at a time
‘corresponding to the political and military ascendance of the
young Muslim community’. The first thing one must take note
here that world’s greatest Islamic scholars of the 21st century
agree that Islam’s birth was rooted as a political and military
entity. One must wonder how an entity that sought to assert
political and military power of the material world at the budding
stage of its formation could be identified as a religion, which
should be a spiritual enlightening concerning the immaterial world
and connecting to the supposed creator of the Universe.

The critical point one must take note that the scholars assert
that this verse was revealed in a period of political ascension.
This means the verse was revealed when Islam was not yet a strong
political and military force but was in ascension towards such a
force. In other words, Muslims were still in a budding stage but
rising in political power. This claim of the learned scholars,
itself, affirms the claim of the Pope that these verses were
revealed when Muslim were still a weaker community.

But the story does not stop there. A thorough analysis of the
greatest Islamic scholars and historians reveals a much uglier
face of Islam even at this stage, which the scholars call
‘corresponding to the political and military ascendance of the
young Muslim community’. According to Ibn Kathir, the
unquestioned authority of Islam and the greatest commentator of
the Koran write the following on the interpretation (Tafsir) of
this verse:

Allah said: ﴿لاَ
إِكْرَاهَ فِى الدِّينِ﴾

(There is no compulsion in
religion), meaning, "Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for
Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are
plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone
to embrace Islam. Rather, whoever Allah directs to Islam,
opens his heart for it and enlightens his mind, will embrace
Islam with certainty. Whoever Allah blinds his heart and seals
his hearing and sight, then he will not benefit from being
forced to embrace Islam.''

It was reported that the Ansar were
the reason behind revealing this Ayah, although its indication
is general in meaning. Ibn Jarir recorded that Ibn `Abbas said
that before Islam "When (an Ansar) woman would not bear
children who would live, she would vow that if she gives birth
to a child who remains alive, she would raise him as a Jew.
When Banu An-Nadir (the Jewish tribe) were evacuated from Al-Madinah,
some of the children of the Ansar were being raised among
them, and the Ansar said, `We will not abandon our children.'
Allah revealed,

﴿لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِى الدِّينِ
قَد تَّبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ﴾

(There is no compulsion in
religion. Verily, the right path has become distinct from the
wrong path.)''

Abu Dawud and An-Nasa'i also
recorded this Hadith. As for the Hadith that Imam Ahmad
recorded, in which Anas said that the Messenger of
Allah said to a man,

First, this is an authentic Hadith,
with only three narrators between Imam Ahmad and the Prophet.
However, it is not relevant to the subject under discussion,
for the Prophet did not force that man to become Muslim. The
Prophet merely invited this man to become Muslim, and he
replied that he does not find himself eager to become Muslim.
The Prophet said to the man that even though he dislikes
embracing Islam, he should still embrace it, ’for Allah will
grant you sincerity and true intent.'

Let us delve a little further into the background of Islam in
order to grasp the circumstances better. Starting in 609 CE, the
prophet tried to propagate his new creed amongst the people of his
ancestral city of Mecca. It did not make much headway there, and
even after 12 years of intense proselytizing, he mustered only
about 100 converts. Finding no hope of further progress of his
creed there, he tried, without success, to relocate to At-Taif in
619 CE. Next year, during the pilgrimage season in Mecca, the
prophet was able to make a few converts from amongst the pilgrims
of Medina. These converts went back and were able to draw further
converts in Medina to the creed of Islam. Expecting some good
prospect there, the prophet sent a few experts knowledgeable in
his creed and in a couple of years around 70‑80 people had joined
his religion even in the absence of the Prophet. Hopeful of a
greener pasture for success there, the prophet migrated to Medina
in June 622 with all the Muslims he had so far been able to
convert in Mecca. Those Muslims, who came with him from Mecca,
were called the Muhajirons (emigrants) and the native converts of
Medina were called the Ansars (helpers).

Before we I delve into the real meaning of this verse, let us
first have a look at what the scholars have to say. The 38
Scholars also agree to this issue by saying that ‘some
Muslims of Medina wanted to force their children to convert from
Judaism or Christianity to Islam, and this verse
was precisely an answer to them not to try to force their children
to convert to Islam.’ This assertion of the Scholars relates
to following part of Ibn Kathir's Tafsir: “When Banu An-Nadir
(the Jewish tribe) were evacuated from Al-Madinah, some of the
children of the Ansar were being raised among them, and the Ansar
said, `We will not abandon our children.' Allah revealed this
verse.” Let us now consider the circumstances which lead to
the evacuation of the Jewish tribe of Banu Nadir.

Soon after settling down in Medina, the Prophet sought to start
raiding life-sustaining trade-caravans from Mecca passing through
nearby routes to Syria. But his Medina converts (Ansars), who had
only promised to protect the prophet, were unwilling to support
his violent venture. However, Allah, quickly revealed a verse
commanding them to fight even if they did not like it:

"Fighting
(Jihad) is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is
possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that
ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye
know not" [Quran 2.216].

With this command from God, the Prophet sent a band of Muslims
to attack a Mecca caravan in February 623 for the first time,
barely seven months after his arrival in Medina. The first success
came only in Nov-Dec of that year in Nakhla. Eight Muslim raiders
under the command of Abdullah Ibn Jahsh, attacked a caravan lead
by four Mecca citizens in which one merchant was killed, two were
taken prisoner and a fourth escaped with life. The caravan was
brought back to Medina as war booty to be distributed amongst the
raiders with the prophet taking a fifth of the share [Ibn Ishaq, p
287].

However, it was the last day of Rajab – a sacred period in the
Arabian custom during which fighting and violence were prohibited.
This breach of centuries-old sacred custom, devoutly respected by
the Arabs, created great dissatisfaction amongst the citizens of
Medina including the Muslim converts.

It put the Prophet into big trouble and he initially tried to
distance himself from the blood bath. Abdullah and other
co-raiders were heartbroken at this. However, Allah quickly
revealed a verse to justify this bloodshed during the prohibited
month:

They ask
thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: 'Fighting
therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of
Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to
prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members.'
Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they
cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if
they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in
unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the
Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide
therein [Quran 2:217].

This verse not only justified the sacred month blood-bath but
those, who were unhappy with it, were also threatened against
desertion of Islam: ‘And if any of you Turn back from their
faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this
life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and
will abide therein.’

Muslim historians have made ‘mount of a molehill’ regarding the
Mecca citizen’s oppression of the Muslims before their migration
to Medina. In reality, the Mecca Quraysh allowed their fellow
pagans to convert to his creed freely. Despite the fact that
Muhammad’s alleged revelations were uncouth and uncivilized in
language and insulting to the religion and culture of the Mecca
citizens and to their ancestors whom the prophet consigned to the
fire of hell. In today’s modern civilized world any Muslim who
dares to leave Islam to join another religion is almost invariably
killed by the Muslims in Islamic countries. Not a single free
citizen of Mecca is known to have faced any life-threatening
assault. However, a few slaves of the pagan masters who had
converted to Islam faced beating and confinements. When the slaves
convert to a religion, which was so insulting and hostile of the
religion, culture, and ancestors of their masters, such
persecution was quite natural. It should be noted that in Islamic
laws, if a slave converts to another religion, he must be killed
after three days notice to revert to Islam [Hedaya, Charles
Hamilton (Trs), Vol. 2, p225-26,228].

In truth, the general response of the Quraysh was the rejection
of Muhammad’s new religion and they advised others not to accept
it. When the exasperation and insults to the local religion and
cultures of centuries became unbearable, the Quraysh imposed
social exclusion on the troublesome Muslims in 617 CE before
withdrawing it two years later [More
Detail here]. Even today, such sanction is considered
a civilized measure for dealing with such a situation. It should
be noted that Allah has cited exactly the behavior and attitude of
the Mecca idolaters in verse 2:217: "but graver is it in the
sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny
Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its
members." In the battlefield of Bad’r, as the dead bodies of
the enemies were being cast into a mass grave, an indignant
prophet yelled over them: "Have ye now found true that which
your Lord did promise to you. What my Lord promised to me, that
have I verily found to be true. Woe unto these people! Ye have
rejected me, your Prophet! Ye cast me forth, and others gave me
refuge; ye fought against me, and others came to my help!"
[Ibn Ishaq, p 306]. The Prophet too affirmed exactly the same
harmless treatment of his community by the Mecca Quraysh. Yet,
after such rather civilized treatment, what the Quran calls
‘tumult and oppression’, became worse than slaughter in the
judgment of Allah and his prophet [Q 2:217].

With this command [Q 2:217], fighting, killing and the capture
of booty during the traditionally forbidden month were made lawful
for the Muslims. The Prophet also ordained Abdullah with the
title, 'Amir-ul-Muminin' (Commander of the Faithful).
This bloodbath was also very meaningful for the Islamic faith in
that this was the first raid, which brought them booty (wealth of
plunder) of which, the prophet kept a fifth as his share and the
remainder was distributed amongst the raiders. The two prisoners
were exchanged for ransoms.

Next battle came two month’s later, during the first fasting
month of Ramadan in Islam, when the Prophet sought to attack
another very rich caravan being lead by the Meccan chief Abu
Sufian. Muhammad’s first biographer Ibn Ishaq writes, “When the
apostle heard about Abu Sufian coming from Syria, he summoned the
Muslims and said, ‘This is the Quraysh caravan containing
their property. Go out to attack it; perhaps God will give it as a
pray’” [Ibn Ishaq, p 289]. The confrontation resulted in the
famous battle Badr, in which the Mecca army, despite having three
times as strong an army, lost heavily to the Muslims. This
incredible win was the most significant military event for Islam’s
future and has been duly glorified in the annals of Islam as the
greatest holy war [Ibn Ishaq, p 289f].

In preparation for the battle of Bad’r, the prophet had invited
all citizens of Medina, including those not yet Muslims, to join
this expedition in the hope of winning booty. At least two major
pagan tribes, including one under the leadership of great
hypocrite Abdullah Ibn Obayyi had joined, although Abdullah later
backtracked fearing defeat. Muhammad finally could muster only 329
fighters against 1000 fighters in the opposition camp. Under such
feeble military strength, let us analyze a couple of instances in
the battlefield of Badr to understand the prophet’s intention to
resort to violence and military force.

In the midst of the battle of Badr, the Prophet was loudly
encouraging his soldiers saying, "Allah had promised paradise
to those who die fighting in His cause." At this time, Omeir
Ibn al-Humam, a lad of only 16 years, was eating dates on the side
of the battle. Hearing this exhortation from the Prophet's mouth,
he threw away the handful of dates. "Is it these dates,"
he cried, "that hold me back from paradise? Verily, I will
taste no more of them until I meet my Lord (in paradise)!"
Whereupon, he picked up his sword and rushed on to the enemies
only to be slain. In another instance, Auf Ibn Harith asked the
Prophet, ‘O apostle of Allah, what makes the lord laugh with
joy at His servant?’ The Apostle answered, ‘When he
plunges into the midst of the enemy with a mail.’ Whereupon,
‘Auf drew off the mail-coat he was wearing and threw it away:
then he seized his sword and fought the enemy till he was slain’
[Ibn Ishaq, p 300].

Banu Qainuqa Evacuation: Following the return
from Badr, the prophet went on his raiding spree after a seven
days’ rest before resuming raids. Over the next 3-4 months, he
raided Banu Sulaym in al-Kudr, Banu Qainuqa, al-Sawiq, Dhu Amarr
and al-Furu of Bahran [Ibn Ishaq, p 360‑362].

Soon after the battle of Badr, the prophet assembled the
members of the Banu Qainuqa at the marketplace and addressed them
as follows:

“O Jews, beware lest God bring upon
you the vengeance that He brought upon the Quraysh and become
Muslims. You know that I am a prophet who has been sent – you will
find that in your scriptures and God’s covenants with you.”

In reply, they spurned his threat and warned him of fighting
back if he attacked them. Following this, Allah revealed this
verse [Ibn Ishaq p362]:

“Say to those who reject Faith: "Soon
will ye be vanquished and gathered together to Hell, -an evil bed
indeed (to lie on)! There has already been for you a Sign in the
two armies that met (in combat): One was fighting in the cause of
Allah, the other resisting Allah; these saw with their own eyes
Twice their number. But Allah doth support with His aid whom He
pleaseth. In this is a warning for such as have eyes to see.” [Q
3:12-13]

A few days after this warning, a youngster from the Qainuqa
tribe teased a Muslimah at the marketplace. Over such harmless
pranksterism, a Muslim man attacked and killed him. In
retaliation, other men from the Qainuqa tribe killed the Muslim
killer. Although the Muslims were at fault for giving this
harmless incident a violent turn by killing the Jewish prankster,
the compassionate prophet of Allah went further to attack the
entire Qainuqa tribe who had no complicity or knowledge of this
individuals’ rather harmless act. When the Jewish tribe
surrendered unconditionally, Muhammad started preparation for
slaughtering the community. However, the great Islamic hypocrite
Abdullah Ibn Ubayy pleaded with Muhammad to deal kindly with them,
because this tribe had been a traditional ally of his tribe. When
the Prophet turned away from his plea, an angry Abdullah caught
the prophet by the collar of his robes to which the prophet’s face
became pale. When the Prophet asked to let go of him, Abdullah
answered, “No, by God, I will not let you go until you deal
kindly with my clients. Four hundred men without mail and three
hundred mailed protected me from all mine enemies; would
you cut them down in one morning? By God, I am a man who
fears that circumstances may change.” Abdullah was still a
powerful leader of his tribe whose his ominous threat relented the
Prophet from the intended bloodbath and instead, commanded them to
go to exile within three days [Ibn Ishaq, p363].

It should be noted that Abdullah had converted to Islam but
never acceded to the excessive cruelty of the prophet. And Allah
did not miss this opportunity to warn Abdullah and other Muslims
of such disobedience in the future [Ibn Ishaq, p363-364]:

O you who
believe! do not take the Jews and the
Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and
whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one
of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people. But you
will see those (Abdullah and his likes) in whose hearts is a
disease hastening towards them, saying: We fear lest a calamity
should befall us; but it may be that Allah will bring the victory
or a punishment from Himself, so that they shall be regretting on
account of what they hid in their souls (Q 5:51-52).

After expulsion of the Qainuqa tribe, the Prophet ordered
Muslims to kill “any Jew that falls within your power”.
Following this, a Jewish convert, named Muhayyisa, killed a Jewish
merchant named, Ibn Sunayyna, of his own tribe, who happened to be
on his way. When Muhayyisa’s elder brother confronted him over the
horrendous act, “You enemy of God, did you kill him when much
of the fat in belly comes from his wealth”. Muhayyisa
answered, “Had the one, who ordered to kill him, ordered me to
kill you – I would have cut you head off”. To this rage, the
elder brother exclaimed, “By God, a religion which can bring
you to this is marvelous!” and he became a Muslim [[Ibn
Ishaq, p369].

About this time, the prophet also ordered the assassination
of a poetess Asma Bte Marwan (mother of five children), Ka’b Ibn
Ashraf and Abu Afaq (120 years old) who had composed poetry
criticizing his creed and acts of violence.

Evacuation of Banu Nadir: Just over a
year after the expulsion of Banu Qainuqa, the prophet with a
number of his men went to the house of the Banu Nadir chief for
the settlement of a dispute. Surprising everyone, the prophet
suddenly rushed off the meeting leaving his Muslim attendees
behind. After a wait, when the Prophet did not return, the other
Muslims also left. The Prophet later accused the Banu Nadir of
conspiring to kill him by throwing stones from the roof of the
house – a message delivered to him by the angel; so he left the
meeting. On this unsubstantiated accusation, the prophet ordered
the evacuation of the Banu Nadir settlement for face death.
Abdullah Ibn Obayyi once again sought to stand by the Banu Nadir
against this unjustified cruelty and in the ensuing seize of the
community, the Jews were defeated and were expelled like the Banu
Qainuqa tribe [Ibn Ishaq, p437].

These are the stories which the 38 great scholars of Islam call
‘simple evacuation’ of Jewish tribes. For the
harmless pranksterism of an individual or the unsubstantiated
accusation of the plot to kill the Prophet, attacking the whole
community and evicting them empty handed from their homes and
properties are acts of extreme cruelty. The prophet’s initial
intention to slaughter the surrendered Banu Qainuqa tribesmen
would have been an act of cruel barbarity of the highest degree.
Here are the modern world’s finest scholars of Islam, who seek to
pass on these incidences of cruel barbarity as the ‘simple
evacuation’ of these tribes.

Real meaning of verse 2:256: These
violent incidences must be taken in the context that Muhammad
started plundering raids just seven month after his relocation to
Medina which resulted in the murder in Nakhla during holy month,
the bloodbath of Badr and the expulsion of Qainuqa tribe within
twenty months of his residence in Medina, when he could muster
only a paltry, yet deadly, 300-400 Muslim fighters on his side.
The prophet’s violent intent and heartless blood-letting actions
against the Mecca Quraysh over minor issues and Allah’s coming
down every time with divine verses to justify such horrendous acts
in no way represent the Islamic religion’s agreement to the mantra
of ‘No compulsion in religion’ [Q 2:256].

In reality, when we consider the proper context of this (2:256)
verse as explicated by ibn Kathir, it actually means completely
opposite of what the thirty‑eight scholars of Islam have tried to
invent. What this verse had intended to mean was that when the
Ansar women wished to raise their Muslim children, if they remain
alive, as Jews, they are warned against forcing their children
into Judaism. Since they are born Muslims, let them remain in
Islam, as Islam is the only true religion, distinctly clear from
the falsehood of Judaism. The last part of Ibn Kathir's Tafsir, "Embrace
Islam.'' The man said, "I dislike it.'' The Prophet said,
"Even if you dislike it.'', also affirms this. When the
Prophet insist that the man must embrace Islam even if he dislike
like, there remains little doubt that this verse only meant the
Ansar women must not raise their children as Jews. Therefore, the
world's greatest scholars of Islam have truly resorted to absolute
deception to hoodwink those who are unaware of the details of
Islam.

After explaining the ‘no compulsion’ verse, the scholars then
extracted another verse from the Koran to fortify their case in
favor of Islamic tolerance:

Moreover,
Muslims are also guided by such verses as Say: The truth is from
your Lord; so whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will,
let him disbelieve. (al-Kahf 18:29); and Say: O disbelievers! I
worship not that which ye worship; Nor worship ye that which I
worship. And I shall not worship that which ye worship. Nor will
ye worship that which I worship. Unto you your religion,
and unto me my religion (al-Kafirun: 109:1-6).

Now, these are the verses revealed in Mecca during very early
period of Islam. They only represent a grudging acceptance of the
existence of other religions on earth at a precarious stage of
Islam. The truth is: these verses were abrogated by later verses.

Let us have a look at the other famous verse, ‘Unto you
your religion, and unto me my religion’ which is most
often used by the moderate Muslims to demonstrate the greatness of
Islamic religion. In reality, there is little essence in this
verse that is worthwhile for a modern civilized society. This
verse is not at all meant for social cohesion between communities
that is required in a modern secular society for peaceful
coexistence. Instead, the injunction of this verse completely cut
the Muslim community from the rest of the mankind. It marks clear
division between Muslims and the non-Muslims. Option for social
cohesion and religious intercourse of Muslims with other religious
and ideological communities is completely shut forever with the
stroke of this verse.

God's Transcendence

Then the scholars wander into the meaningless vagary of
discussing Islamic “God's Transcendence”
(whatsoever that may mean) and make comparison with the Christian
God. I will leave most of it out of this discussion except the
following section:

As this
concerns His Will, to conclude that Muslims believe in a
capricious God who might or might not command us to evil is to
forget that God says in the Quran, Lo! God enjoins justice and
kindness, and giving to kinsfolk, and forbids lewdness and
abomination and wickedness. He exhorts you in order that ye may
take heed (al-Nahl, 16:90). Equally, it is to forget that God says
in the Qur'an that He has prescribed for Himself mercy (al-An'am,
6:12; see also 6:54), and that God says in the Qur'an, My Mercy
encompasses everything (al-A'raf 7:156).

Here is Allah, Who claims Himself to be just, kind and merciful
and his mercy extends to all creatures. Let me go back to the
verse 2:217, which justified attacking and killing the Mecca
citizens:

They ask thee
concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: 'Fighting
therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of
Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to
prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members.'
Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they
cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if
they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in
unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the
Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide
therein [Quran 2:217].

Once again, the fault of the Mecca citizens was their rejection
of Muhammad’s messages as true religion, advised other fellow
community members not to accept it, and did not allow Muslims
access to their sacred temple of Ka’ba. These events finally lead
Muhammad to relocate in Medina (driven out). Allah also outlines
the same: “but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent
access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the
Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members.' Tumult and oppression
are worse than slaughter.” These reactions of the Mecca
citizens to Muhammad’s messages would be considered the highly
civilized even in today’s standard, especially in the context that
Muhammad’s messages were uncouth and insulting to the
centuries-old religion and culture of the Quraysh and to their
ancestors. Even today, we do not expect an orphan of a Mecca
citizen of low social status to be alive for a single day if he
claims to have received a new revelation and start preaching his
religion in the same style of Muhammad and make a claim on the
Ka’ba to be belonging to his new God.

Now calling these sets of civilized behavior and actions of the
Mecca citizens ‘tumult and oppression’ is thoroughly
illogical and unjust and judging them as worse than slaughter
to justify killing of the Mecca citizens is utterly cruel,
merciless and barbaric. Again, seeking to slaughter the entire
Banu Qainuqa tribe of the Jews over an individual
community-member’s rather harmless pranksterism and subsequent
display of Allah’s frustration over Abdullah Ibn Obayyi’s forceful
interference (Q 5:51-52), does not represent a merciful and
just prophet as well as a just and merciful Allah either, but a
cruel and barbaric one. Yet, again, over the accusation of spying
by a member of the community, the prophet slaughtered 800‑900 men
of the Banu Quraiza Jews and their women and children were
captured as salves for sale. This time again, Allah justified and
made it a universal law through codification in the Koran:

"And He
brought those of the People of the Scripture who supported them
down from their strongholds, and cast panic into their hearts.
Some ye slew, and ye made captive some.
And He caused you to inherit their land and their houses and their
wealth, and land ye have not trodden." [Koran
33:26-27]

This codified law of Allah to be applied by Muslims for
eternity would again be considered as the most merciless, cruel
and barbaric expression of sick mind of the Islamic deity. In
civilized, human judgment these divine commands of Allah and the
actions of His beloved prophet in accordance, could never be
called a mission of a just, kind and merciful deity.

The use of Reason

In regard to reason in Islam, the scholars seek to show Islam
as the epitome of reason and to support it, they write:

God says, “We
shall show them Our signs in the horizons and in themselves until
it is clear to them that it is the truth (Fussilat 41:53).” Reason
itself is one among the many signs within us, which God invites us
to contemplate, and to contemplate with, as a way of knowing the
truth.

Although this statement of Allah seems to show a glimpse of
reason on which Islam is based, yet the all powerful Allah
miserably failed to make his signs clear to the Kaffirs. And when
the Kaffirs of Mecca, unable to grasp Allah’s clear signs as the
truth, and rejected it and advised others to keep away too, Allah
was enraged and made war mandatory against them:

"Fighting is
prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye
dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing
which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not". [Quran
2:216]

Allah is the all-powerful and controller of all things. With
little difficulty, He should be able to convince of the truth He
wants to convey to His creatures. He promised to do so [Q 41:53]
and yet He failed. Thus, Allah failed to stand up to reasons that
he should never fail, especially after making a promise to perform
a job. When He fails, reason says that He should be ashamed of
Himself for His failure. But through weird reasoning, He now
declares war against those whom He failed to convince. Punishing
others for Allah’s own failure is utterly nonsensical and cruel ,
to say the least. And Allah’s lack of reasoning did not end there.
When He declared war during a prohibited month, it resulted in
bloodbath in Nakhla. As already mentioned, He revealed the
following verse to justify this plunder as:

They ask
thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: 'Fighting
therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of
Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to
prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members.'
Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they
cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if
they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in
unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the
Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide
therein [Quran 2:217].

Here again we see loads of utter stupidity in Allah’s
reasoning. He says, “Tumult and oppression are worse than
slaughter.” ‘Tumult and oppression’ simply meant the
Mecca citizens rejection of Muhammad’s messages as the true
revelation from Allah and advised fellow citizens to do the same,
they stopped him from entering their sacred temple of Ka’ba and
when Muhammad saw no hope, he left for Medina. This is Allah’s own
confession: “but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent
access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the
Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members.” Muhammad also
affirmed the same in his yelling at the dead bodies of Mecca
citizens in Badr: “Ye have rejected me, your Prophet! Ye cast
me forth, and others gave me refuge; ye fought against me, and
others came to my help!"

How does this so-called ‘tumult and oppression’
becomes worse than slaughter? There is absolutely no trace of
logic and reason in this trash statement of Allah. Instead, it
represent an attitude of utter stupidity and intent of wanton
cruelty against a people for their most natural reaction to
prophet Muhammad’s alleged message of revelation.

In truth, Koran is littered with such statements of stupidity,
absurdity and wanton intent of cruelty by the alleged supreme
creator, Allah. I will cite one more example from the multitude of
them.

Surely those
who disbelieve, it being alike to them whether you warn them, or
do not warn them, will not believe. Allah has set a seal
upon their hearts and upon their hearing and there is a covering
over their eyes, and there is a great punishment for
them…. There is a disease in their hearts, so Allah added to their
disease and they shall have a painful doom. [Q 2:6-10]

And again:
“Allah took away their light, and left them in utter darkness--
they do not see. Deaf, dumb (and) blind, so they will not turn
back.” [Q 2:16-17]

Here’s Allah who has created everything on earth and holds
absolute control over them. He intentionally sets a seal over some
people’s heart, ears and eyes to turn them dumb, deaf and blind.
As a result, they naturally fail to comprehend Allah’s message and
turn to disbelief. After leading these otherwise innocent people
to disbelief, He punishes them with painful doom, that is, with
burning in the fire of hell for eternity along with other earthly
punishments. Such intent of the alleged Wisest of the Wise does
not show any trace of reasons. It is thoroughly illogical and
cruel to play such nonsensical game with one’s own
creation/children. It represents a sickly mind of wanton sadism on
the part of the Islamic God. Indeed, the Koran is cluttered with
such
stupid absurdity,
contradictions,
injustices and
intolerance in every chapter of it. Judging
by standard human standard, the Koran can probably rate as the
most absurd and illogical book ever produced in the history of
mankind.

What is "Holy War"?

On the issue of ‘holy war’ being fought by the Jihadists, the
Scholars say:

Jihad, it
must be emphasized, means struggle, and specifically struggle in
the way of God. This struggle may take many forms, including the
use of force. Though a jihad may be sacred in the sense of being
directed towards a sacred ideal, it is not necessarily a "war".
Moreover, it is noteworthy that Manuel II Paleologus says that "violence"
goes against God's nature, since Christ himself used violence
against the money-changers in the temple, and said "Do not think
that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring
peace, but a sword…" (Matthew 10:34-36). When God drowned Pharaoh,
was He going against His own Nature? Perhaps the emperor meant to
say that cruelty, brutality, and aggression are against God's
Will, in which case the classical and traditional law of jihad in
Islam would bear him out completely.

The learned scholars of Islam want to tell us that Jihad does
not necessarily involve violence or war, yet they do not give any
example, say from the life of prophet, which would have
constituted a peaceful Jihad and holy in nature. Yet, they quickly
justify violence by referring to God’s drowning Pharaoh as a
legitimacy of use of violence in God’s justice. Sure, the mythical
story of God’s drowning Pharaoh is not justified in itself, in
that God need to create a Pharaoh whom He has to kill by drowning.
A simple wish of the almighty Allah could rectify all the faults
of Pharaoh. However, the crooked scholars of Islam, on one side
want to tell us that Jihad does not involve violence, and on the
other justifies violent Jihad by drawing the example of Pharaoh.
Further, they assert that ‘classical and traditional laws of
Jihad’ would bear him (emperor Paleologus) out completely. But
would the scholars enumerate those ‘classical and traditional laws
of Jihad’?

One of the earliest verses on fighting Jihad was revealed when
the Medina citizens did not wish to join the Prophet’s venture of
violent attack of Mecca caravans as already explained above.

"Fighting is
prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye
dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing
which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not". [Quran
2:216]

The only fault of the Mecca citizens was their thoroughly
civilized treatment of the prophet and his community in Mecca
before their migration to Medina. The resulting Jihad action at
Nakhla and Badr leading to the capture of Mecca and the Ka’ba did
not quite involve a nonviolent Jihad but death, blood, capture and
looting of Kafir properties and caravans. The unquestioned Islamic
expert, Ibn Kathir has the following to say regarding this verse
and Jihad in Islam:

In this Ayah, Allah made it obligatory for the Muslims to
fight in Jihad against the evil of the enemy who transgress
against Islam. Az-Zuhri said, "Jihad is required from every
person, whether he actually joins the fighting or remains
behind. Whoever remains behind is required to give support, if
support is warranted; to provide aid, if aid is needed; and to
march forth, if he is commanded to do so. If he is not needed,
then he remains behind.'' It is reported in the Sahih:

(There is no Hijrah (migration from
Makkah to Al-Madinah) after the victory, but only Jihad and
good intention. If you were required to march forth, then
march forth.)

Allah's statement:

﴿وَهُوَ كُرْهٌ لَّكُمْ﴾

(...though you dislike it) means,
‘Fighting is difficult and heavy on your hearts.' Indeed,
fighting is as the Ayah describes it, as it includes being
killed, wounded, striving against the enemies and enduring the
hardship of travel. Allah then said:

﴿وَعَسَى أَن تَكْرَهُواْ شَيْئًا وَهُوَ
خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ﴾

(. ..and it may be that you dislike
a thing which is good for you) meaning, fighting is
followed by victory, dominance over the enemy, taking over
their lands, money and offspring. Allah continues:

﴿وَعَسَى أَن تُحِبُّواْ شَيْئًا وَهُوَ
شَرٌّ لَّكُمْ﴾

(...and that you like a thing which
is bad for you.)

This Ayah is general in meaning.
Hence, one might covet something, yet in reality it is not
good or beneficial for him, such as refraining from joining
the Jihad, for it might lead to the enemy taking over the land
and the government. Then, Allah said:

﴿وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ وَأَنتُمْ لاَ
تَعْلَمُونَ﴾

(Allah knows, but you do not know.)
meaning, He has better knowledge than you of how things will
turn out to be in the end, and of what benefits you in this
earthly life and the Hereafter. Hence, obey Him and adhere to
His commands, so that you may acquire the true guidance.

(217. They ask you concerning
fighting in the Sacred Months. Say, "Fighting therein is a
great (transgression) but a greater (transgression) with Allah
is to prevent mankind from following the way of Allah, to
disbelieve in Him, to prevent access to Al-Masjid Al-Haram (at
Makkah), and to drive out its inhabitants, and Al-Fitnah
is worse than killing.'' And they will never cease fighting
you until they turn you back from your religion (Islamic
Monotheism) if they can. And whosoever of you turns back from
his religion and dies as a disbeliever, then his deeds will be
lost in this life and in the Hereafter, and they will be the
dwellers of the Fire. They will abide therein forever.) (218.
Verily, those who have believed, and those who have emigrated
(for Allah's religion) and have striven hard in the way of
Allah, all these hope for Allah's mercy. And Allah is
Oft-Forgiving, Most-Merciful.)

“Allah's statement: (...though you dislike it) means, ‘Fighting
is difficult and heavy on your hearts.' Indeed, fighting is
as the Ayah describes it, as it includes being killed,
wounded, striving against the enemies and enduring the
hardship of travel. Allah then said: (and it may be that you
dislike a thing which is good for you) meaning, fighting
is followed by victory, dominance over the enemy, taking over
their lands, money and offspring. Allah continues….”

According to this greatest Islamic authority in the Koran,
‘Jihad (fighting) is followed by victory, dominance, over the
enemy, taking over the lands, money and offspring’ does not
talk about a Jihad that does not involve violence and war. Neither
does the learned Ibn Kathir talk about another kind of Jihad that
does not involve violence. In reality, the Koran is very explicit
about fighting the Jihad to the end such that victory is achieved
over the kafirs. Other verses that talks about the Jihad are:

Let those fight in the cause of Allah, Who
sell the life of this world for the hereafter.
To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah, - whether he is slain
or gets victory - Soon shall We give him a reward of great
(value). [Q 4:74]

Allah hath
purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for
theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they
fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a
promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and
the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah?
[Quran 9:111]

Here’s is a Jihad that involves killing and being killed and is
binding command of Allah [9:111] and when the Jihadi is killed, he
is rewarded greatly by Allah. I hope the scholars of Islam do not
want to tell us that these are commands of peaceful Jihad in
Islam.

In truth, the Koran is very explicit about fighting the Jihad
to the end such that victory is achieved over the kafirs and Islam
rules supreme on earth. For the idolaters, Jihad is ordained to
kill them until they convert and establish Islamic rituals:

Quran 9:5:
Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the
idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them
(captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But
if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then
leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Clearly, the Islamic command in regards to Christian and Jews
are to fight them until they are subjugated and agree to pay Jizya
in humiliation. Here is a verse on this:

[Quran 9:29] Fight against
such of those who have been given the Scripture (Christian & Jews)
as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that
which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the
Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily,
being brought low.

Thus, according to the injunction of Allah in the Koran, the
idolaters have only the choice between death and conversion to
Islam. The Jews and Christians, being the people of the book, are
allowed to retain their religion, only after acceding to a
subjugated status to Islam and willing to pay the Jizya
(poll-tax). In reality, all the major schools of Islamic
jurisprudence prescribe the same injunction of Jihad, except the
10th century Hanafi School, which spared the
idolaters of death by accepting them as the Dhimmi alongside the
Jews and Christians.

The great historian and Islamic scholar Ibn Khaldun says in ‘The
Muqaddimah’: “In the Muslim community, the holy war is a
religious duty, because of the Universalism of the (Muslim)
mission and (the obligation to) convert everyone to Islam either
by persuasion or by force” [Lambton, p202]. I hope the 21st
century great scholars of Islam do not want to tell us that Allah
and the Koran are not the right authority in Islam. Neither should
they deny the authority of unquestioned thinker of Islam, Ibn
Khaldun. The scholars effort to hide numerous other injunctions by
one ‘No compulsion’ verse does not simple hold any water.

In regard to Jihad, the scholars continue:

The
authoritative and traditional Islamic rules of war can be
summarized in the following principles: (1) Non-combatants are not
permitted or legitimate targets. This was emphasized explicitly
time and again by the Prophet, his
Companions, and by the learned tradition since then.

(2) Religious
belief alone does not make anyone the object of attack. The
original Muslim community was fighting against pagans who had also
expelled them from their homes, persecuted, tortured, and murdered
them. Thereafter, the Islamic conquests were political in nature.

About the second principle of Islam, the scholars claim that ‘religious
belief alone does not make any the object of attack’ goes
against the principle of the Koran which ordained the killing of
the idolaters wherever they are found, if they do not accept
Islam, while the Jews and Christians must be fought until they
agree to pay Jizya as a mark of their lowly status in Islam. About
the first principle, if targeting the noncombatants is prohibited,
then the prophet himself broke this principle of Islam when he
captured the women and children of Banu Quraiza after slaughtering
their males and sold them to Nedj for horse and weapons. This
principle was broken by Allah too, when He legitimized the
prophet’s capture of the women and children of Banu Quraiza in the
following verse:

"And He
brought those of the People of the Scripture who supported them
down from their strongholds, and cast panic into their hearts.
Some (adult males) ye slew, and ye made captive some (women
and children)…[Koran 33:26-27]

In regard to Jihad, the scholars write further:

3. Muslims
can and should live peacefully with their neighbors. And if they
incline to peace, do thou incline to it; and put thy trust in God
(al-Anfal 8:61). However, this does not exclude legitimate
self-defense and maintenance of sovereignty.

If the scholars have any faith in the Koran, then I believe by
‘living peacefully with neighbors’ – the scholars mean
giving options of conversion or death to idolaters and payment of
Jizya in humiliation or death to the Christians and Jews. Now this
verse (8:61) quoted by the scholars themselves demand conversion
of infidels to Islam to buy peace:

[Q
8:61-62]: And prepare
against them what force you can and horses tied at the frontier,
to frighten thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others
besides them, whom you do not know (but) Allah knows them; and
whatever thing you will spend in Allah's way, it will be paid back
to you fully and you shall not be dealt with unjustly.

And if they
incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in Allah;
surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing.

In this verse, ‘trust in Allah’ is obligatory for the
infidels to make peace with the Muslims. I hope, the scholars do
not want to convince us that after ‘trusting in Allah’ –
idolaters and the Jews and Christians should still remain in their
own religions. It should be noted how the greatest scholars of
Islam truncate and doctor such an intolerant verse and use it to
give a peaceful face of Islam. Such is the level of deception,
dishonesty and lies world’s greatest scholars have used in this
historical letter to the Pope.

Forced Conversion

On the issue of forced conversion into Islam, the scholars
write:

The notion
that Muslims are commanded to spread their faith "by the sword" or
that Islam in fact was largely spread "by the sword" does
not hold up to scrutiny. Indeed, as a political entity Islam
spread partly as a result of conquest, but the greater part of its
expansion came as a result of preaching and missionary activity.
Islamic teaching did not prescribe that the conquered populations
be forced or coerced into converting. Indeed, many of the first
areas conquered by the Muslims remained predominantly non-Muslim
for centuries. Had Muslims desired to convert all others by force,
there would not be a single church or synagogue left anywhere in
the Islamic world. The command ‘There is no compulsion in
religion’ means now what it meant then. The mere fact of a
person being non-Muslim has never been a legitimate casus belli in
Islamic law or belief. As with the rules of war, history shows
that some Muslims have violated Islamic tenets concerning forced
conversion and the treatment of other religious communities, but
history also shows that these are by far the exception which
proves the rule. We emphatically agree that forcing others to
believe — if such a thing be truly possible at all — is not
pleasing to God and that God is not pleased by blood. Indeed, we
believe, and Muslims have always believed, that Whoso slays a soul
not to retaliate for a soul slain, nor for corruption done in the
land, it shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether (al-Ma'idah
5:32).

The scholars deny that Islam was not spread by force. They
claim that Islam was largely spread by the missionary activities.
But they do not tell us about which Islamic missionary made how
many converts.

The Scholars would agree that if the missionary activity is the
prescribed means of preaching Islam, it must have been prescribed
in the Koran and the prophet must have applied it at its best. But
the prophet’s actions vis-à-vis attacking the Mecca caravans, the
murder at Nakhla, the battle of Badr and the expulsions of the
Banu Qainuqa and Nadir tribes and Allah’s justification and even
incitement to those horrendous and barbarous acts by revealing
verses as recorded in the Koran, do not at all represent
prescription and actions of missionary activity but mindless
violence. Now here is what is posted on the
Oman Government website:

After God empowered Muslims to enter
Mecca, Islam became the prevailing power and was spread by
use of fear… The prophet then saw it preferable to
contact neighbouring kings and rulers, including the two kings of
Oman, Jaiffar and Abd, sons of Al Julanda, through peaceful means.
History books tell us that the prophet had sent messages to the
people of Oman, including a letter carried by military escort from
Amr Inn Al Aas to Jaiffar and Abd, sons of Al Julanda, in which he
wrote: ‘In the name of God the Merciful and the Compassionate,
from Muhammad bin Abdullah to Jaiffar and Abd, sons of Al Julanda,
peace be on those who choose the right path. Embrace
Islam, and you shall be safe. I am God’s messenger to all
humanity, here to alert all those alive that non believers
are condemned. If you submit to Islam, you will remain
kings, but if you abstain, your rule will be removed and my horses
will enter your arena to prove my prophecy’.

Indeed, between the treaty of Hudaibiyya and until Prophet’s
death, he sent numerous such letters for submission to Islam. I
hope the world’s greatest Muslim scholars are not telling us that
the prophet’s missionary acts require ‘embracing Islam to be
safe’ as alluded in his letter to the Oman king. If you
don’t, “my horses will enter your arena to prove my prophecy”. Is
this the way, the Islamic missionary act works?

Something New?

In regard to Emperor Manuel II Paleologus’ challenge that Islam
did not bring any thing new to the world, the scholars have the
following to say:

You mention
the emperor's assertion that "anything new" brought by the Prophet
was "evil and inhuman, such as his alleged command to spread by
the sword the faith he preached." What the emperor failed to
realize — aside from the fact (as mentioned above) that no such
command has ever existed in Islam — is that the Prophet never
claimed to be bringing anything fundamentally new. God says in the
Holy Qur'an, Naught is said to thee (Muhammad) but what already
was said to the Messengers before thee (Fussilat 41:43), and, Say
(Muhammad): I am no new thing among the messengers (of God), nor
know I what will be done with me or with you. I do but follow that
what is Revealed to me, and I am but a plain Warner (al-Ahqaf,
46:09). Thus faith in the One God is not the property of any one
religious community.

According to
Islamic belief, all the true prophets preached the same truth to
different peoples at different times. The laws may be different,
but the truth is unchanging.

I have never expected such a stupid and idiotic passage in this
historical letter from such star scholars of Islam to the Pope.
Under such impressive subtitle, ‘Something new (in
Islam)?’, they present absolutely nothing new in
Islam. They just emphasize everything is Islam has already been
revealed and that Muhammad was just like another prophet who came
before him. It is an act of utter stupidity on the part of the
almighty Islamic God of supreme wisdom to send a Prophet to bring
nothing new to the mankind. It is an absolutely meaningless
exercise. There could be the argument of messages being corrupted
and forgotten. But this represents an impotent God’s inability to
preserve what he has revealed before. The same things He has to
redo tens of thousands of times. I remind the readers that Allah
had sent 124,000 prophets according to Islamic belief with Prophet
Muhammad being the last.

The Experts

Regarding the experts mentioned by the Pope, the Muslim
scholars write the following:

You refer at
one point non-specifically to "the experts" (on Islam) and also
actually cite two Catholic scholars by name, Professor (Adel)
Theodore Khoury and (Associate Professor) Roger Arnaldez. It
suffices here to say that whilst many Muslims consider that there
are sympathetic non-Muslims and Catholics who could truly be
considered "experts" on Islam, Muslims have not to our knowledge
endorsed the "experts" you referred to, or recognized them as
representing Muslims or their views.

In this section again the scholars wander in useless vagary.
They complain about Pope’s referral to two non-Muslim experts and
at the same time, they claim that there are other ‘experts’ from
non-Muslim background who could be endorsed. But they do not
clarify anything. Why these two experts cannot be endorsed while
other can be? If they do not make anything specific and clear
about the issue, what is the point of including such a passage in
a letter of such importance? Utter stupidity is in display again.

In the final point (Christianity and Islam),
the scholars take a comparative look at Islam and Christianity. As
an atheist, I would not go into this section as I do not endorse
any of the two faiths. I will, however, delve into one issue. The
scholars say:

Upon this sincere and frank dialogue we
hope to continue to build peaceful and friendly relationships
based upon mutual respect, justice, and what is common in essence
in our shared Abrahamic tradition, particularly 'the two
greatest commandments' in Mark 12:29-31 (and, in varying
form, in Matthew 22:37-40), that, the Lord our God is One Lord; /
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with
all thy soul, and with all thy understanding, and with all thy
strength: this is the first commandment. And the second
commandment is like, namely this, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as
thyself’. There is none other commandment greater than these.

About the first commandment, it is stupid on part of the
supreme creator of all things in the universe that he will require
to send tens of thousands of prophets one after another just to
beg or remind that His creation must love Him with passionate and
fanatical zeal and dedication. About the second commandment, how
are the Muslims going to love their non-Muslim neighbors when the
supreme Allah has commanded the Muslims not to take the Christians
as friends:

O ye who
believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They
are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for
friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
[Q 5:51]

O Ye who
believe! Choose not for guardians such of those who received the
Scripture before you, and of the disbelievers, as make a jest and
sport of your religion. But keep your duty to Allah if ye are true
believers. [Q 5:57]

It does not end there. Allah has commanded the Muslims to fight
the Christians until they are reduced into submission and pay
Jiziya in humiliation as already explained [Quran 9:29].
I believe that these greatest scholars of Islam are not so stupid
that they will fail to understand when the supreme Islamic God
commands his followers not to take Christians as friends but
instead incite them to fight the Christians until the latter are
subdued to a humiliating status of Dhimmi, ‘loving
thy neighbors’ does not just work in Islam as far as
Christians and Jews are concerned. The idolaters face even a worse
fate, which is conversion or death.

In a nutshell, this open letter to the Pope by the world’s
thirty‑eight greatest scholars of Islam, already dubbed as the
‘Fatwa 38’ will be deemed to a piece of document of
historical importance. It will also be historical in lies,
dishonesty, deception and stupidity for its content; given the
fact that modern world’s greatest brains of Islam have been the
architects of this letter.

---------

References

* Hedaya, Charles Hamilton (Trs), Vol. 2,
p225-26,228.

* Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad – A
Translation of Sirat Rasul Allah by A Guillaume, p287. Oxford
University Press, Karachi.

* Lambton, Ann KS (1981) State and Government
in Medieval Islam; Oxford University Press, New York, p201.